Rocky Anderson carries on... this is my response to his most recent insult to working people.

I awoke this morning to find another missive directed at me, working people, the working class and unions from Rocky Anderson in my e-mail:

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 12:44 AM, Rocky Anderson <rockyanderson.justice@gmail.com> wrote:

Great! They can get a good sense of how  people like you, living off the dues of people who actually work, undermine the progressive movement. You are so destructive and crude. I pity you.

This was my response:

Rocky,

Interesting how you are using the term "progressive movement" now but what set off this entire spat was when I asked one very simple question:

Why isn't the word "progressive" used in the proposed Mission and Core Value Statement of the Justice Party?

And then this problem expanded and deepened after I asked you and every single member of the National Steering Committee along with your two trusted right-hand men to write an essay explaining your positions in relation to "full employment" so we would all know and understand the Justice Party was being led by "progressives" not afraid to wear the word "progressive" on a button or state the word "progressive" as part of its Mission and Core Value Statement and in its Program and Platform. Only three of us expressed this commitment to "progressivism" in writing; you Rocky, are still one of those who refuse to place your position on this very simple, basic and fundamental issue of "progressivism" in writing which means that even if you were to accomplish the unlikely--- getting elected again to any public office, there would be no way for "progressive" voters to get any kind of accountability from you; no different than any politician from the Democratic Party from whence you came carrying that opportunist--- not "progressive" baggage. 

By your own words you are still nothing but a Democrat; you expect labor to do your "heavy lifting," as you call it; but, you don't want workers to have a say in the decision-making process.

You disagree and if you don't get your way, you threaten to withdraw the "star power of Rocky Anderson." Rocky; let me tell you, you are no star; if anything you more like a comet burning up hurtling towards earth becoming mere particles of dust.

You have now openly pandered to Dale Latty, the head of the Georgia Justice Party, who openly called on everyone to "expunge all socialists and Communists from the Justice Party, and you now state you stand by this guy--- really, Rocky; you call this the commitment of a "progressive?"

I want you to remember something, Rocky; it was you and the Justice Party that came BEGGING to me to help you... not the other way around. 

And when the fledgling Justice Party came begging, at that time I insisted in seeing something in writing proving to me and other working people that what was being built was a truly "progressive" political party where we would be able to fully participate in a way that gave us voice in bringing forward "progressive" solutions to our problems rather than properly framed progressive sounding policy directives workers have been getting from the Democratic Party.

I voluntarily got involved with the Justice Party extremely reluctantly thinking if enough "progressives" got involved we could build a "progressive" party finding someone like you with a a little star power image useful even though everyone knows you are very weak-minded and less than "progressive" by your own admission.

As I stated publicly over and over again, I much preferred the star power of activists like Cindy Sheehan or Cynthia McKinney and even the liberals like Richard Trumka.

To think that one simple question posed by me setting you off in this manner in which you have wasted the time of so many people because you have been an obstructionist in having this question answered is the epitome of the kind of person you are:

Why isn't the word "progressive" used in the proposed Mission and Core Value Statement of the Justice Party?

Rocky, for a fellow who has said in his opening communications no less than 37 times that you didn't intend to "spend one more minute on this nonsense" you sure keep coming back for more.

Anytime you want to stop communicating your nonsense to me this will end. Believe me when I say this Rocky, I have had more than my fill of you and the bigots you work with now the majority of the Justice Party's National Steering Committee.

I wish the newly formed minority well, "the progressive tendency of the Justice Party;" and I wish them luck--- they are going to need all the luck they can get trying to work with opportunists like you, Rocky, and bigots you defend like Dale Latty who want them to be "expunged." I guess they will have to "wish upon a falling star."

A worker representing workers who want a voice at work and in any political party we get involved in, 

Alan L. Maki 

Director of Organizing,

Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

Cc:

Patti Bird, President, Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

Sonya Melbye, Secretary-Treasurer, Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

Tara Margolin , "Jonathan M. Ruga" , "Dave Jette" , "Devon Nola" , "Jonathan M. Ruga" , "Laura Bonham" , "Lenny Brody" , "Linda Boyd" , "Luis Rodriguez" , "Michael Ballentine" , "Michael McGee" , "Michael Telesca" , "Sally Soriano" , "Sue Gunn" , 

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 12:44 AM, Rocky Anderson <rockyanderson.justice@gmail.com> wrote:

Great! They can get a good sense of how  people like you, living off the dues of people who actually work, undermine the progressive movement. You are so destructive and crude. I pity you. 

On Jan 25, 2013 9:02 PM, "Alan Maki" <alan.maki1951mn@gmail.com> wrote:

Rocky,

I reversed the Bcc and the Cc so you sent your stupid shit to every major newspaper in the country... lol!

-- 

Alan L. Maki

Director of Organizing,

Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

58891 County Road 13

Warroad, Minnesota 56763

Phone: 218-386-2432

Cell: 651-587-5541

Primary E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net

E-mail: alan.maki1951mn@gmail.com

Blog: http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/

Rocky Anderson writes me a letter and I respond.

I just received an e-mail from Rocky Anderson that I would like to share along with my response:

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Rocky Anderson wrote:

Alan - I really don't want to spend one more minute on all the nonsense of the past couple weeks.  However a couple things are really bothering me and I'd appreciate your response:

1.  Casino workers are apparenly paying dues to the union that employs you.  Do you work full-time for that union?  If so, was participation on the NSC part of your job?  Were you really spending all those hours maligning several good people who have been supportive of the Justice Party while you're supposed to be working on behalf of those who actually work for a living and pay their union dues?  Or is this sort of "political activism" part of your job?

2. What basis do you have for claiming that I was so "dirty" the Democratic Party threw me out? Or that I was so "dirty" I couldn’t run for re-election as mayor.  Or that I took bribes?  Or that I was involved in a shady real estate deal?  What union people in SLC did you speak with about me?  And what do you know about Jonathan Ruga that led you to call him a "shyster," "fraud," "schemer," and such?  Or do you just make such sweeping insults without having any facts to support them?

******
Rocky Anderson
418 South Douglas Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
801.557-9007
rockyanderson.justice@gmail.com

My response:

Yes, Rocky; everything I do is part of my job. I work 24/7 365 days a year for the Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council. I am responsible and accountable to the casino workers I represent.

When you answer the question I posed to you first about your stand on the "government being responsible for full employment" I will be happy to respond to each and every question you have posed here.

If you have a problem with the way I do my job, file a complaint.

I do find it interesting this is the very first time you have ever mentioned casino workers.

Perhaps if you would have spent as much time campaigning for President as what you are spending time attacking me you might have actually received a respectable number of votes.

I will also answer each and everyone of your questions very publicly.

Looking forward to receiving your answer to my question,

Alan L. Maki
Director of Organizing,
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

CC:
Patti Bird, President, Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council
Sonya Melbye, Secretary-Treasurer, Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council



--
Alan L. Maki
Director of Organizing,
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763

Phone: 218-386-2432
Cell: 651-587-5541

Primary E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net
E-mail: alan.maki1951mn@gmail.com

Blog: http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/

The controversy surrounding my being "expunged" from the National Steering Committee of the Justice Party.

• 
  

  Who were the three "left wing" cowards who joined with the right wing reactionaries to "expunge" me from the Justice Party's National Steering Committee in the name of becoming a party "beyond progressive" open to John Birchers and Social Credit in the name of "populism?"
  
  There were three left wingers who joined the right wingers:
  
  Lenny Brody from Chicago.
  Dave Jette from the State of Washington
  Luis Rodriguez from California

  
  Some people are attempting to organize "the progressive tendency in the Justice Party;" I seriously doubt they can be successful unless they can get rid of these right wingers Rocky Anderson was so sneaky about bringing in.
  
  Of course, the Justice Party doesn't need Rocky Anderson and his "star power;" we could have run Charlie Brown and Lucy carrying signs for peace, against racism and for full employment and received more votes than Rocky ever could.
  
  As progressives we are looking for votes along with building a progressive movement so why would we want to bring into a party a bunch of right-wing racist and anti-Semitic reactionaries who are also anti-labor?
  
  I don't believe how some people, including even some very confused leftists, argue this is a matter of "freedom of speech and belief" that these John Birchers and Social Credit be allowed into a party that is supposed to be "progressive."
  
  Political parties are built by people who share common ideas, goals and objectives--- this has nothing to do with "freedom of speech and belief;" these bigots have the right to organize their own political party centered around their racist and anti-working class views, goals and objectives.
  
  There is a very sharp battle of ideas underway in our country and around the world. Political parties reflect this battle.
  The initial calls to "expunge" me for my declared left wing views by the Georgia and Texas Justice parties was joined by Rocky Anderson.
  
  So, on the one hand these people are hypocritically insisting they have a right to take over a small "progressive party" turning it into some kind of perverted "populist party" claiming this is the only way to get votes because a declared "progressive party" limits the number of votes while out of the other side of their mouths they talk about "expunging" those they disagree with.
  
  Have these people forgotten who the backers of Joe McCarthy were, and remain?
  
  The John Birch Society has been the base for the continuation of McCarthyism.
  
  I called for each and every member of the National Steering Committee to submit something in writing concerning the government being responsible for full employment as a way to assure accountability to progressive views.
  
  How do you build a "progressive party" when those working with you are actually against what progressivism stands for?
  
  And wow! Did these people, including Rocky Anderson, go into a tizzy. But, what better way to maintain accountability than to have something in writing--- especially when you see these people posting articles from John Birch Society publications and stating they are supporters of Social Credit and then when challenged they claim the magazine "The New American" is the voice of "real progressives."
  
  I have never come across such sleazy bastards.
  These "left wingers" who defend this as "freedom of speech and beliefs" definitely have no place in leadership in any progressive national organization or political party which makes me wonder why the organizations which they belong to pay so little attention to what these people are doing?
  

   I would also point out that fascist movements have only always made headway and come to power by wrapping themselves in the pretense of progressivism and leftism because if they peddle their racist and reactionary ideas straight up very few people will buy into their hateful message. Although there are exceptions--- here in North America, Social Credit came to power in the Province of Alberta in Canada and plunged that province into darkness for around three decades until courageous labor leaders like Dave Werlin, who was President of the Alberta Federation of Labour, took these dirty bastards on.
  
  Canada's very racist and anti-labor Prime Minister, Steven Harper who hails from Alberta, is the embodiment of what these Social Credit movements create.

  
  

There Will Be No Peace Dividend After Afghanistan

The price we pay for Wall Street's imperialism...

There Will Be No Peace Dividend After Afghanistan

Financial Times
January 24, 2013
Pg. 11


By Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes

Nearly 12 years after the US-led invasion of Afghanistan began, a war-weary America is getting ready to leave. But there will be little in the way of a peace dividend for the US economy once the fighting stops.

The direct costs of the war are already $700bn. The original mission was to root out al-Qaeda and the Taliban. But in 2003, the US shifted nearly all of its attention and resources to Iraq. The Taliban regrouped and strengthened in Afghanistan, making the conflict far more expensive. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda shifted operations into Pakistan, Yemen and Mali, where France this month sent troops.

US forces have struggled in Afghanistan’s mountainous terrain, where getting supplies and munitions has been a complex logistical exercise. Then came the ill-fated “surge” strategy, which put 30,000 more US troops on the ground with little if any military gain. There were 3,000 attacks on US and allied forces in 2012 – a figure little changed from 2009, when President Barack Obama’s administration decided on the change in strategy.

The surge itself was expensive. But the way we conducted the war unnecessarily increased its costs. For instance, the closure of the land route through Pakistan for eight months in reprisal for a US drone attack in November 2011 that inadvertently killed 24 Pakistani soldiers added billions to the transport bill. Another $90bn has been devoted to “reconstruction” aid in Afghanistan – the largest amount spent by the US since the Marshall plan, with little to show for it. Endemic corruption among local contractors and officials has drained money from the budget.

Much of this red ink will dry up once Nato troops withdraw. But the true cost of the war is only just beginning. Indeed, the costs after withdrawal may exceed those during the war. Choices made in the past decade mean high costs for years to come – and will constrain other national security spending.

In 2008, when we wrote The Three Trillion Dollar War, our book on the costs of the Iraq war, we predicted that costs of disability and healthcare benefits for recent war veterans would grow enormously. With nearly one in two returning troops suffering some form of disability – ranging from depression to multiple amputation – the reality far exceeds our estimates. The number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans receiving government medical care has grown to more than 800,000, and most have applied for permanent disability benefits. Yielding to political pressure, the White House and Congress have boosted veteran’s benefits, invested in additional staff and technology, expanded mental health treatments and made it easier to qualify for disability pay. But the number of claims keeps climbing. The Department of Veterans’ Affairs struggles to cope with its backlog.

The VA’s budget is likely to hit $140bn this year from $50bn in 2001. In previous wars, the bill for benefits came due decades later – the peak year for paying second world war benefits was 1969. Now, with much higher survival rates, more generous benefits, and new, expensive treatments, the eventual costs of caring for veterans of the Afghanistan war will exceed $1tn. To put these numbers into perspective, the debate surrounding the fiscal cliff has centred on expenditure cuts over 10 years of $1tn-$2tn.

There are other costly legacies. To recruit volunteers to fight in highly unpopular wars, the military adopted higher pay scales and enhanced healthcare benefits both for those serving and their families and for those who retired. Even though the Pentagon – watching its personnel costs soar – is asking Congress to roll back some of these benefits, they are politically untouchable. The result is that total personnel costs will soon reach one-third of the total defence budget. Spending on Tricare, the healthcare programme for the US military and their families, is likely to reach $56bn this year. Tricare is growing even faster than Medicare or Medicaid, and will soon consume 10 per cent of the defence budget.

Meanwhile, there is a huge price tag for replacing ordinary equipment that has been consumed during the wars – not least because of our policy of outsourcing maintenance to sometimes dodgy local contractors. There is also the US pledge to help prop up the Afghan police and army for the next decade – expected to run to $5bn-$8bn a year. The legacy of expensive commitments will force the Pentagon to make difficult choices – for example, reducing the size of the army and investing in more unmanned robotic weapons.

The US has already borrowed $2tn to finance the Afghanistan and Iraq wars – a major component of the $9tn debt accrued since 2001, along with those arising from the financial crisis and the tax cuts implemented by President George W. Bush. Today, as the country considers how to improve its balance sheet, it could have been hoped that the ending of the wars would provide a large peace dividend, such as the one resulting from the end of the cold war that helped us to invest more in butter and less in guns. Instead, the legacy of poor decision-making from the expensive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will live on in a continued drain on our economy – long after the last troop returns to American soil.

The writers are respectively a recipient of the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics, and a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School.

"Jobs, Jobs, Jobs" is all the talk but where are the jobs?

Please note: Send me your questions at: amaki000@centurytel.net
Bookmark this blog post because I will be answering your questions often.

"Jobs, jobs, jobs" is all the talk coming out of Washington and from the State Houses as well as being all the hype from the over-paid "economists" and media pundits.

There isn't a single politician running for office who doesn't promise "jobs, jobs, jobs;" but, what happened to the idea the United States government is responsible for maintaining "full employment?" 

Question:

How come the words "full employment" never appear in what Robert Reich is writing? (See below: Why jobs must be our goal now)

Question:

Do you hear Barack Obama talk about his responsibility for "full employment?"

Check this out; seems to me Robert Reich's beloved Obama could do at least as good as Wright Patman:

This on-line book (Full Employment Act of 1945) available for downloading for free may be of interest to you:

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015081304209;seq=10;view=1up

(Note: If the above link does not work you will have to copy and paste the link into your browser. I can not emphasize enough how important it is for anyone concerned about jobs and unemployment to read this transcript of the hearing--- which includes the Act itself--- the "Full Employment Act of 1945")

This link above is to the entire transcript of the Congressional Hearing on the original Full Employment Act of 1945 which includes the actual Act brought forward by liberal populist, Wright Patman---

 

Wright Patman was a U.S. Congressman from Texas in Texas's 1st congressional district and chair of the United States House Committee on Banking and Currency. 

Born: August 6, 1893, Hughes Springs, Texas
Died: March 7, 1976, Bethesda
Party: Democratic Party

We have to ask why Obama's supporters aren't pushing for the enactment of this "Full Employment" legislation today?

  

All we get from Wall Street's politicians in the Democratic and Republican parties is "talk, talk, talk" instead of "jobs, jobs, jobs."

The working class needs its own political party just like labor in Canada has the New Democratic Party. 

Without a strong, vibrant and active Communist Party made up of grass roots activists and rank-and-file workers defending the interests of the working class in the streets and in the electoral and legislative arenas; a Communist Party providing the catalyst for real change with movement building while pushing for the broadest possible working class and all people's united action we will not be able to win full employment here in the United States.

Consider organizing a Communist Club in your neighborhood, where you work or go to school.    

It will be up to left wing working class rank-and-file activists together with liberals, progressives and leftists finding common ground and a "meeting of the minds" to bring forward and advance "Full Employment" legislation; no political party or organization is going to do this unless pushed even though the American people expect this from their government.

Wall Street reactionaries from the Chamber of Commerce to the National Association of Manufacturers united to defeat the "Full Employment Act of 1945" as the United States government was carrying out political repression against working class activist as Republicans and Democrats acted in collusion bringing forward the most reactionary and anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act intended to criminalize and destroy the Communist Party USA.

Common sense tells us working people without jobs are going to be poor; this is so basic it shouldn't have to be stated.

"Jobs, Jobs, Jobs;" but what happened to the idea embodied in the defeated "Full Employment act of 1945" that the United States government is responsible for maintaining "full employment?"

This is from the Wall Street Journal:

Prospects for a stronger upturn, at least in the first half of 2013, remain slim. Many economists worry about losing even more ground, especially as lawmakers launch a potentially risky political battle this winter over raising the federal debt ceiling. The U.S. economy grew at an average annual rate of 3.6% from 1950 through 1999 but has since slowed to less than 2% ... Since the recession ended 3½ years ago, economists have been divided over long-run growth prospects after the downturn pushed millions of Americans out of the labor force. Looking forward five to 10 years, the argument goes, annual U.S. growth may reach a ceiling of 3% and unemployment could settle at a rate above the 5.7% annual average recorded during the last half of the 20th century. 

--Wall Street Journal, Jan 4, 2013

  

Without the United States government becoming responsible for "full employment" in this country where does this leave working people? In poverty.

Robert Reich and his fellow Democratic Party economists--- among them: Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Dean Baker and their "linguist" George Lakoff--- are wrong to focus solely on "jobs" without bringing forward the need for the United States government to be responsible for "full employment;" our goal, the goal of the working class movement, must be to get the United States government to assume its responsibility to the American people for maintaining a "full employment economy" just like the immensely popular liberal populist United States Congressman from Texas, Wright Patman, proposed.

Check out what Robert Reich has written below at the very time the Wall Street Journal made the dire prediction above.

Does anyone really believe we can solve the problem of unemployment in this country unless the United States government assumes its responsibility to the American people for "full employment?"

The United States government is going to have to create millions of jobs by re-establishing proven government programs like WPA, CCC and C.E.T.A.

How we pay to create these jobs is an equally important question which people have the right to have answers to:

1. End the wars and occupations which will yield huge "peace dividends."

2. Tax the rich; tax corporate profits; tax Wall Street transactions.

Another huge benefit derived from "full employment" is Social Security will be placed on a solid financial footing; as long as everyone pays in, everyone will get from Social Security what they are entitled to receive in benefits--- plus, we can reduce the age at which people can retire while increasing the benefits to provide pensioners with real living incomes... this, too, will create more jobs as aging workers retire, young workers find a place in the workforce.

We will derive numerous other benefits from "full employment" which include reducing crime and pushing all wages up instead of having this huge pool of unemployed people dragging wages down. Workers will have maximum power in their places of employment which will assure the protection of rights and a decent standard of living for everyone.

The best union-busting and strike-breaking weapon Wall Street has is this huge pool of unemployed labor.

Check out the budget priorities of Obama and the Democrats. These budget priorities are not conducive to creating "full employment;" in fact, such priorities squandering the wealth of our nation on militarism and wars can only lead to making most Americans poor because wars kill jobs just like they kill people:

http://nationalpriorities.org/

No; as Robert Reich is suggesting, the American people should not have to pay an increase in Social Security taxes; but, more importantly--- and the point Robert Reich refuses to bring forward--- is that the American people should not have to pay these "war taxes" for militarism and wars most people in this country don't even want. What happened to democracy of "We, the People?"

We have a government working for Wall Street instead of a government working for the American people.

What more proof do we need of this than the wrong-headed budget priorities combined with the fact this government with Democrats and Republicans at the helm shirk their responsibility to the American people in refusing to maintain "full employment."

These politicians want our votes; shouldn't working people at least get jobs in return for our votes?

"Full employment" is all about governmental accountability to the people.

"Full employment" is all about peace and democracy.

"Full employment" is all about the most fundamental human right of all--- the right to a job at a real living wage.

Alan L. Maki
Co-Chair,

Lake-of-the-Woods Communist Club

 
 

Why Jobs Must Be Our Goal Now

By Robert Reich
blog
January 3, 2013

http://robertreich.org/post/39656182596

The news today from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
is that the U.S. job market is treading water. The
number of new jobs created in December (155,000),
and percent unemployment (7.8), were the same as
the revised numbers for November.

Also, about the same number of people are looking
for work (12.2 million), with additional millions too
discouraged even to look.

Put simply, we're a very long way from the job
growth we need to get out of the gravitational pull of
the Great Recession. That would be at least 300,000
new jobs per month.

All of which means job growth and wage growth
should be the central focus of economic policy, not
deficit reduction.

Yet all we're hearing from Washington -- and all
we're likely to hear as Republicans and Democrats
negotiate over raising the debt ceiling -- is how to
cut the deficit.

The typical American worker's paycheck will drop
this week because his or her Social Security tax will
rise, from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent. That's
nonsensical.

We need to put more money into the pockets of
average workers, not less. The first $25,000 of
income should be exempt from Social Security taxes
altogether, and we should make up the difference by
eliminating the ceiling on income subject to Social
Security taxes.
__________

Robert B. Reich, Chancellor's Professor of Public
Policy at the University of California at Berkeley,
was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton
administration.

__________________
Alan L. Maki 
Director of Organizing, 
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

58891 County Road 13 
Warroad, Minnesota 56763 

Phone:  218-386-2432 
Cell:  651-587-5541 

Primary E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net 

E-mail: 
alan.maki1951mn@gmail.com 

Blog: http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/

Rocky Anderson is moving the Justice Party to the right.

Busy night tonight; phone has been ringing off the hook with calls from people wanting to know what happened at this evening's National Steering Committee of the Justice Party meeting... same old crap working people are always subjected to by these well-heeled politicians. This is my post which explains things. I got all kinds of calls like this one which I posted my response to in the Justice Party forums:

Wow! that was quick. Just got a call from Sally Robbins in Superior, Wisconsin who has, like a lot of people, been following this discussion.

http://justiceparty.websitetoolbox.com/post/Full-Employment-requires-more-than-repeating-the-words-quotJobs-Jobs-Jobs.quot-6149484

Sally is asking me why I am no longer a member of the Justice Party and its National Steering Committee.

Another good question.

Let's just say me and Rocky Anderson don't see eye-to-eye on where he wants to take the Justice Party and the controversy centers around the progressive ideas I have been posting and commenting on here.

Rocky Anderson for quite some time has been peddling this thinking that the Minimum Wage figures can just be pulled from a hat for political expediency without considering cost of living factors and apparently he doesn't have the stomach or the moral and political courage to take on our Wall Street enemies who reap super profits from paying workers poverty wages.

Rocky can post the contents of our e-mail exchanges on this issue if he so chooses. I think it would make for some pretty good transparency.

Rocky thinks it is appropriate we should all be working for poverty wages. He has proposed the Minimum Wage should be a miserly poverty wage of $10.00 an hour without any connection to cost of living factors--- although he does agree with me that the Minimum Wage should be indexed to inflation; but, most importantly, he is opposed to making the government legislatively responsible for maintaining full employment.

So, this evening we had this argument out at the meeting of the National Steering Committee--- and, wouldn't you know what happened? Us progressives lost the battle.

I don't want to place words in Rocky Anderson's mouth so he is welcome to come on here and explain his position in his own words lest he accuses me of distorting his position.

If I am wrong regarding his position on full employment and the minimum wage at least people can read for themselves his own views--- after all, it isn't me running for public office. If we have his position here in writing then we have some accountability should he ever again be elected to public office.

Fair enough?

How about it Rocky?

You have been reading this post and the comments and responses very closely... like they say: Rocky Anderson, come on downnnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!

And if Rocky Anderson wants to deal with any other problems he has with me I would suggest he start another forum topic about any of that and I will be happy to respond to his post/s.

But, let's try to stay on topic here under this post--- full employment, the Minimum Wage, cost of living and standard of living and how these dirty imperialist wars--- including one of the very dirtiest imperialist wars Rocky supported... that savage U.S. led N.A.T.O. war against the people of Yugoslavia--- which, like all these dirty imperialist wars killed people while killing our jobs.
__________________
Alan L. Maki
Director of Organizing,
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

Notice: I am no longer a member of the Justice Party or the Justice Party's National Steering Committee

58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763

E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net

This is an excellent article so my comments are meant to add to it and not disparage it in any way. I re-print the entire article below.

Even if It Enrages Your Boss, Social Net Speech Is Protected

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

Published: January 21, 2013

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/technology/employers-social-media-policies-come-under-regulatory-scrutiny.html?_r=1&

This is the comment I posted on Steven Greenhouse's FaceBook page:

Stating a policy and enforcing that policy are two very different things as any worker knows. Just look at the "Family Leave Act." The United States Department of Labor flatly refuses to enforce it. Here in the state of Minnesota the State of Minnesota itself is harassing and firing its own employees who avail themselves of the "Family Leave Act" and the United States Department of Labor does nothing.

It has taken SIX years for the United States Department of Labor just to get the State of Minnesota to place the required signage up in its places of employment with workers who avail themselves of the act being harassed to no end facing all kinds of suspensions and harassment. 

Now, pose the question:

What will happen to employees if they make posts on the internet complaining they are being harassed and bullied by an employer because they availed themselves first of the Family Leave Act and then they get harassed or fired because they post about this on the Internet?

Do you really think an employee who gets no help from Obama's U.S. Department of Labor affirming their right to Family Leave is going to risk posting about this problem on the Internet knowing Obama's NLRB is there to protect them?

I don't think so.

Words on paper are such nice things in this country--- one would think the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights would have had such basic and simple problems avoided...

But, then again, all you need is a good expensive lawyer because your high paid union officials think fighting a case or even filing a grievance is too much work.

And where does this leave a casino worker employed in the hideous Indian Gaming Industry working in a loud, noisy, smoke-filled casino being paid poverty wages without any rights under state or federal labor laws... and with mainstream media so beholden to these employers for advertising revenue the problems are taboo to even discuss in our great big wonderful bastion of democracy.

Try posting what I have just written and Steven's excellent article on your FaceBook page if you work in one of the more than 350 casino operations comprising the Indian Gaming Industry and see what happens.

Go see your member of congress or a state legislator? Ya, sure; you betcha--- those people bribed by the National Indian Gaming Association who helped its co-chair get off assault charges for beating his wife unconscious because she came home late.

Come on people... let's enter the real work-a-day when you can get a job world of the working class.

Yes; it is very good all this is printed on paper; but...

Alan L. Maki

Director of Organizing,

Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

 From the New York Times

Even if It Enrages Your Boss, Social Net Speech Is Protected

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

Published: January 21, 2013 128 Comments

• FACEBOOK
• TWITTER
• GOOGLE+
• SAVE
• E-MAIL
• SHARE
• PRINT
• SINGLE PAGE
• REPRINTS
• 

As Facebook and Twitter become as central to workplace conversation as the company cafeteria, federal regulators are ordering employers to scale back policies that limit what workers can say online.

Enlarge This Image

Brendan Bannon for The New York Times

Rafael Gomez, a lawyer for Hispanics United of Buffalo, said the group would appeal an N.L.R.B. decision in favor of employees.

Enlarge This Image

Brendan Bannon for The New York Times

Mariana Cole-Rivera, formerly of Hispanics United of Buffalo, was fired along with four co-workers after Facebook posts.

Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

• Read All Comments (128) »

Employers often seek to discourage comments that paint them in a negative light. Don’t discuss company matters publicly, a typical social media policy will say, and don’t disparage managers, co-workers or the company itself. Violations can be a firing offense.

But in a series of recent rulings and advisories, labor regulators have declared many such blanket restrictions illegal. TheNational Labor Relations Board says workers have a right to discuss work conditions freely and without fear of retribution, whether the discussion takes place at the office or on Facebook.

In addition to ordering the reinstatement of various workers fired for their posts on social networks, the agency has pushed companies nationwide, including giants like General Motors, Target and Costco, to rewrite their social media rules.

“Many view social media as the new water cooler,” said Mark G. Pearce, the board’s chairman, noting that federal law has long protected the right of employees to discuss work-related matters. “All we’re doing is applying traditional rules to a new technology.”

The decisions come amid a broader debate over what constitutes appropriate discussion on Facebook and other social networks. Schools and universities are wrestling with online bullying and student disclosures about drug use. Governments worry about what police officers and teachers say and do online on their own time. Even corporate chieftains are finding that their online comments can run afoul of securities regulators.

The labor board’s rulings, which apply to virtually all private sector employers, generally tell companies that it is illegal to adopt broad social media policies — like bans on “disrespectful” comments or posts that criticize the employer — if those policies discourage workers from exercising their right to communicate with one another with the aim of improving wages, benefits or working conditions.

But the agency has also found that it is permissible for employers to act against a lone worker ranting on the Internet.

Several cases illustrate the differing standards.

At Hispanics United of Buffalo, a nonprofit social services provider in upstate New York, a caseworker threatened to complain to the boss that others were not working hard enough. Another worker, Mariana Cole-Rivera, posted a Facebook message asking, “My fellow co-workers, how do you feel?”

Several of her colleagues posted angry, sometimes expletive-laden, responses. “Try doing my job. I have five programs,” wrote one. “What the hell, we don’t have a life as is,” wrote another.

Hispanics United fired Ms. Cole-Rivera and four other caseworkers who responded to her, saying they had violated the company’s harassment policies by going after the caseworker who complained.

In a 3-to-1 decision last month, the labor board concluded that the caseworkers had been unlawfully terminated. It found that the posts in 2010 were the type of “concerted activity” for “mutual aid” that is expressly protected by the National Labor Relations Act.

“The board’s decision felt like vindication,” said Ms. Cole-Rivera, who has since found another social work job.

The N.L.R.B. had far less sympathy for a police reporter at The Arizona Daily Star.

Frustrated by a lack of news, the reporter posted several Twitter comments. One said, “What?!?!?! No overnight homicide. ... You’re slacking, Tucson.” Another began, “You stay homicidal, Tucson.”

The newspaper fired the reporter, and board officials found the dismissal legal, saying the posts were offensive, not concerted activity and not about working conditions.

The agency also affirmed the firing of a bartender in Illinois. Unhappy about not receiving a raise for five years, the bartender posted on Facebook, calling his customers “rednecks” and saying he hoped they choked on glass as they drove home drunk.

Labor board officials found that his comments were personal venting, not the “concerted activity” aimed at improving wages and working conditions that is protected by federal law.

N.L.R.B. officials did not name the reporter or the bartender.

(Page 2 of 2)

The board’s moves have upset some companies, particularly because it is taking a law enacted in the industrial era, principally to protect workers’ right to unionize, and applying it to the digital activities of nearly all private-sector workers, union and nonunion alike.

Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

• Read All Comments (128) »

Brian E. Hayes, the lone dissenter in the Hispanics United case, wrote that “the five employees were simply venting,” not engaged in concerted activity, and therefore were not protected from termination. Rafael O. Gomez, Hispanics United’s lawyer, said the nonprofit would appeal the board’s decision, maintaining that the Facebook posts were harassment.

Some corporate officials say the N.L.R.B. is intervening in the social media scene in an effort to remain relevant as private-sector unions dwindle in size and power.

“The board is using new legal theories to expand its power in the workplace,” said Randel K. Johnson, senior vice president for labor policy at the United States Chamber of Commerce. “It’s causing concern and confusion.”

But board officials say they are merely adapting the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, enacted in 1935, to the 21st century workplace.

The N.L.R.B. is not the only government entity setting new rules about corporations and social media. On Jan. 1, California and Illinois became the fifth and sixth states to bar companies from asking employees or job applicants for their social network passwords.

Lewis L. Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, said social media rights were looming larger in the workplace.

He said he was disturbed by a case in which a Michigan advertising agency fired a Web site trainer who also wrote fiction after several employees voiced discomfort about racy short stories he had posted on the Web.

“No one should be fired for anything they post that’s legal, off-duty and not job-related,” Mr. Maltby said.

As part of the labor board’s stepped-up role, its general counsel has issued three reports concluding that many companies’ social media policies illegally hinder workers’ exercise of their rights.

The general counsel’s office gave high marks to Wal-Mart’s social policy, which had been revised after consultations with the agency. It approved Wal-Mart’s prohibition of “inappropriate postings that may include discriminatory remarks, harassment and threats of violence or similar inappropriate or unlawful conduct.”

But in assessing General Motors’s policy, the office wrote, “We found unlawful the instruction that ‘offensive, demeaning, abusive or inappropriate remarks are as out of place online as they are offline.’ ” It added, “This provision proscribes a broad spectrum of communications that would include protected criticisms of the employer’s labor policies or treatment of employees.” A G.M. official said the company has asked the board to reconsider.

In a ruling last September, the board also rejected as overly broad Costco’s blanket prohibition against employees’ posting things that “damage the company” or “any person’s reputation.” Costco declined to comment.

Denise M. Keyser, a labor lawyer who advises many companies, said employers should adopt social media policies that are specific rather than impose across-the-board prohibitions.

Do not just tell workers not to post confidential information, Ms. Keyser said. Instead, tell them not to disclose, for example, trade secrets, product introduction dates or private health details.

But placing clear limits on social media posts without crossing the legal line remains difficult, said Steven M. Swirsky, another labor lawyer. “Even when you review the N.L.R.B. rules and think you’re following the mandates,” he said, “there’s still a good deal of uncertainty.”